See also: IRC log
??P4 is me.
<ChrisW> scribenick: Francois
<AlexKozlenkov> zakim ??25 is me
<AlexKozlenkov> zakim mute me
<Harold> Chris, my phone is muted.
<Donald_Chapin> zaqkim, ipcaller is me
<AlexKozlenkov> zakim ??P25 is me
<sandro> (from the Wiki)
<AlexKozlenkov> zakim ??P25 is me??P25 is me
<Donald_Chapin> zakim ipcaller is me
Telecon starts. Next telecon next week.
Chris: in 2 weeks telecon is during hollidays in US. Should we have telecon that week or not?
... Schedule of f2f is to release use cases. We should not decide on this when too many members of WG absent.
... People not there at July 4 telecon should express by FRiday June 30th reservations.
... depending on reservations or not, we'll have a telecon of July 4th.
Scribe cannot hear any longer!!!!
Scribes hears again!
Chris: Ok with these plans concerning releasing use case documents?
Christian de Sainte Marie: if you have reservations express them before release.
Chris: Objections to this plan.
John Hall: Will Chris send an email on this subject.
<ChrisW> ^john hall^evanW^
Chris: Next item: May 23rd minutes accepted?
Christian: discussed during f2f.
<csma> ACTION: Chris to send email requesting people who will not be able to attend July 4th to state any objection June 30th at the latest [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Chris: Objections to May 23rd minutes?
Chris: Minutes of last week. Objections?
... those minutes accepted.
... Chairs work on minutes of last f2f. Will come in a couple of days.
Chris: Most of the actions are on the action tracker. Will be reviewed today.
... New items for today's agenda? None.
... Update to f2f 3: very successful, look most requirements, all resolutions and decisions put in a single document.
... Break between phase 1 and 2 helped.
... f2f 4.
<AxelPolleres> remark on todays agenda, I miss: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/5
<ChrisW> pfps is speaking
pfps: credit card and registrations for f2f 4 sre ok.
... the document on f2f requirements had problem with access permission.
Christian: The access probblem on that page ssems to be for all.
Sandro: will report on this problem to responsible team.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Chris, I apologize; the pinging came from me. I thought that if my phone was muted, the pinging would be too. I guess not.
Chris: Active liaison with SPARQL would be important.
Not SPARQL, SPARQL.
<ChrisW> need a new liason for PRR, Paul Vincent has left RIF WG
Christian: New liaison to ... instead of Paul Vincent needed.
<ChrisW> MISMO=Mortgage .PRR
Christian: Liaison with MISMO: Started a business rule interchange WG.
<ChrisW> xBRL=Business Rules
Christian: ACCORD people not in RIF but they approached ILOG to ask whether working with them on an XML format for exchanging business rules.
... They have not joined RIF but should still be interested.
... There are these 3 organisms but there should be many more.
Christian: Some of them are now interested in a rule layer on top of XML, OWL etc.
... Could we have liaisons with at least some of them.
<johnhall> ORIGO is the UK equivalent of ACORD. It is a W3C member and may also be interested.
Chris: Is looking for people acting as liaisons enough? Is more needed?
Christian: Are there RIF members in contact with some such organizations?
<AxelPolleres> I think ChrisW made a good point here: What is the "current style of liason"? Can we define this?
Christian: First question: Who is in contact with such orgs?
<johnhall> Said and I have several contacts - I will send an emial
Chris: Nobody seems to be in contact with such orgs.
Francois: I suggest ot work out a list of thes orgs.
<johnhall> I'll do a summary of the orgs. and see which you are interested in
Christian: Do you register the action?
<csma> ACTION: JohnH to send an email to chairs listing vertical orgs contacts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action02]
Move to Use Cases and Requirements.
Chris: Christian: Chrisitan producer-consumers continued.
... Action to collect comments on new publications ... ?
... Axel no comments have been sent.
Axel: suggests to leave the subject for the moment.
Harold: it would be good to give a name to this new abstract use case.
Axel: it is called alternative publication use case.
Harold: suggests 'inferring meta-data from explicit one'.
Chris: this action should be continued.
<Deborah_Nichols> Allen sent regrets
Chris: David and Axel take an Action to integrate use cases?
<csma> ACTION: david to work with Axel to integrate Publication UC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action03]
Chris: Christian has an action of treacking whether OMG ....
Christian: Forgotten, ie continued.
Chris: Dave had action add pointer to UC doc to requirement: continued.
... Gary's ACTION: continued.
<AxelPolleres> Jos sent regrets!
Chris: Jos' action seems to be done.
<PaulaP> I think this is done
Chris: Paula had action to capture proposals for rewording on formal semantics: done.
<Harold> Dave Reynolds, could we also refer to your SKOS and RDFS Publication concrete UC from the new abstract one?
Chris: PaulVincent's action?
... Who replaces PaulVincent?
Christian: James Taylor (?)
<DaveReynolds> Link for action 36: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0091.html
<DaveReynolds> Link for action 29: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0089.html
<DaveReynolds> Link for action updating Use Case 8: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0110.html
Christian: About extensibility of the sem. markup. What about language that evolve. That what PaulVincent's question and he got an action to investigate that. I suggest to drop this action. If this is an issue. It will come back.
Chris: Other actions?
... Action on Dave Reynold rephrase requ... : done.
... Action on Sandro list requirements. Continued.
Sandro: in a lot of cases there are different wordings.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Sandro, I would like t ohelp
<LeoraMorgenstern> though I'm not an editor
Sandro: Does someone want to collaborate with me on this?
<ChrisW> actions 30, 31, 36 are closed
Chris: Moe to timing of next release of working draft.
... at f2f we agreed on a deadline. Can we achieve the goal to work on new use cases.
... New use cases have been inco
Chris: two UC need review.
AlexKoz: We submitted a UC.
... It will be one of 3 UC. We are interviewing people.
... will become more generic.
Chris: the WG has a lot of specific UC. We try to abstract some commonalities.
... New UC are not likely to make it into the next working draft.
... For the next working draft, we had 3 candidate UC to be re-reviewed. One of them is the XML one. We missed the deadline.
... had taken the action to have it ready by last Friday.
Sandro: it is ready, there was no feedback.
Chris: UC edited by Gary on XML.
<AxelPolleres> Gary's use case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rules_for_a_Credit_Approval_Service
Chris: this Friday was deadline for people to give comments. Next week deadline for editors to finalize these 3 UC. On July 4th we will have a vote to rekease the document as a working draft.
Christian: The UC is in the initial format (abstract, status, etc.).
<DaveReynolds> Yes, the proposal was to take the Narriative section from that page and use that as an abstract use case
Chris: DavidHirtle. You had a change ot look at this UC?
Dave: I read it over. I think all of them need to be made more consistent.
... I can look at it.
Action on Dave????
Chris: We are still on schedule. 3 UC are significantly digfffent, new or changed.
... Major change will be to incorporate requirements.
... the WG has a bit more than a week to review the document. Next Tuesday the document should be ready and we should vote on it. Objections?
... W3C requires a WG to publish a document every 3 months. Therefore we should release the document in June.
Christian: the requirement part has been re-worked during the f2f.
Sandro: we need an editor's draft.
<DaveReynolds> +1 to having an editor's draft
Chris: Dave and Sandro, can we get an editor's draft for 27th June?
Answer is yes.
Chris: means add new 3 UC annd add requirements.
Ian (?): Update of ??? for new requirement?
Frank: Update of diagram will be done for next week.
<csma> ACTION: David and Sandro to produce editor's draft of UC&R by 27th June [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<sandro> Frank needs to see final Requirements by Friday
<PaulaP> I can work with Frank on the diagram
Franc is FrancoisBry
<sandro> my understanding of the output from the meeting: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/temp
Chris: Paul and Frank, could you try to get it for next week,.
<csma> ACTION: Sandro, Paula, David to update Frank on requirements by Friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<csma> ACTION: Frank to produce new GCSFR picture by next Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<csma> ACTION: Chris to scheudle editors meeting for UCR schedule and meeting between Paula and Franck on content for updated diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action07]
Chris: Plan is to release draft for internal review next week.
Christian: the draft should include RIFRAF.
... a number of requirements had been moved for the time after RIFRAF worked out.
... There was an action on Gary and Carrol to update RIFRAF for last Friday.
Harold: I did some edits.
<AxelPolleres> i am starving on the queue.... ;-)
<sandro> Harold, where on the Wiki?
AexelPolleres: Point mentioned during f2f to restructure UC. Are there actions on that?
Chris: I woory that we are suggesting too many changes for one week.
<AxelPolleres> I proposed it already right after the publication of the first draft.
Chrisitan: Axel already proposed it during the f2f. We wanted to make it for 2nd draft.
<sandro> Harold, is there obsolete text on that page? (it seems like it.) What is the text that's supposed to be published?
Paula: Question about requirements. Do I have to edit, restructure? We need a definitioon of 'covers'.
<AxelPolleres> Remark: I also offered to help on this alignment.
<csma> Axel, agreed that you mentionned that already in March; the point is that this draft is about requirements, not so much UCs
Chris: Will be discussed in the forthcoming editors telecon.
Chris: Harold is RIFRAF ready to be included in document?
Harold: I thunk it is but there is something new on comparing action production rules. This must be checked.
<sandro> Harold: there is a new table, but it's maybe not ready for the draft yet.
<sandro> Harold: But the four discriminators are
Christian: We are not trying to get a complete RIFRAF. It shoud be presented as 'work in progress'.
Chris: We could only include section on 'discriminators'.
Christian: I suggest that Harold extracts the part (of RIFRAF) to be appended to UCR.
Chris: Question on UCR doocuments?
Sandro: Let us record plan in IRC. Chris, please help me:
- 2 new UC
- 1 revised UC
- requirements from f2f
- discriminator section from RIFRAF.
This is new content of new UCR darft.
<sandro> Chris: 2 news uses cases, 1 revised use case, the requirements from F2F, descriminators section of F2F --- that's the new content of WD2 of UCR. The rest will be the same modulo minor editorial changes.
Chris: RIFRAF as next point of our agenda.
... Main content discussed at f2f will go into next working draft.
... syntactic, semantic, pragmatic discriminators. At the f2f we went over all of them, mde sure everyone understands, moved material,
... a large number of requirements have been moved into RIFRAF.
... eg 'RIF will support comments' moved to syntactic discriminators.
... Strong negation is another example.
<AxelPolleres> strong negation is like classical negation without "law of the excluded middle", not more, not less, actually this is a very simple concept.
<ChrisW> csma: corretion, "supporting comments" was not moved, but accepted as a requirement
Chrisitian: since we moved many req to RIFRAF we would apply the RIFRAF to as many rule languages s we want RIF to cover.
Chrisitan: We will use RIFRAF to see what language go into RIF Pase 1, RIF Phase 2, etc.
Christian: Currently we have 5 of them Ilog, Lifg
DVL, Xcerpt, Xchange, etc.
Chrisitan: we need a lot more rlue languages described for identify usefull, necessary, etc. features.
Christian: Who can work on adding rule languages?
Chris: Not for next Working Draft.
Christian: For the working draft after.
<JosDeRoo> chair's projected slides from F2F3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0105.html
Chris: We need the WG to look at rulle languages and identify what is mssing, people to take actions ot update with important elements, identify people responsible for requirement to move to RIFRAF.
... more organisation will be needed.
... we should take actions next week.
... Please go all thru discriminators in RIFRAF, make sure you understand them, identify new discriminatorsthat matter for you.
Chris: Next item is technical design.
... at f2f tech. design not deeply discussed.
Chris: we had a discussions and have taken actions.
Chris: Action on mapping beween ... and DLV.
Christian: Actions of this session have not been recorded. There was action on Hassan to propose extension to Harold proposal.
Chris: That action is recorded.
Christian: That session on technical design was short but interesting.
... Where do we go now?
Chris: How do we map from condition language to Peter's (?) language?
<AxelPolleres> THe question was whether/what of the condition language can NOT be mapped into your language.
Peter (pfps): I gave a maaping. But noot all like it.
Christian: Peter, the 1st action was to map Harold's condition language to y ours. What
is missing in Harold's proposal for the reverse mapping?
Chris: Peter, do you want to take an action?
<AxelPolleres> the issue was: for instance: some languages/systems can NOT deal with e.g. universal conditions, this should be pointed out.
Chris: I suggest to talk about this later.
Peter: There is a requirement to map bewtween 2 different syntaxes. But requirements on that mapping are empty.
... I proposed some requirements for the mapping in general.
we have to review them, you mean.
Christian: Those requirements were in your first posting. Could you summarize them for helping reviewing and discussing them.
Peter: The conditions for my requirements to make sense are not satisfied by the RIFRAF.
Chris: Have you made this clear in an email or elsewhere?
Peter: There is somnething missing in the RIFRAF. THis iis semantics. Whithout semantics, how can you figure out if mappings are good or not.
Chris: You mean condition language, not RIFRAF.
Francois: But as far as I remember a semantics for Harold's condition language has been stressed.
Chris: Any other business?
<sandro> +1 adjourn
Chris: None. Suggest o adjourn.